Regionalization of Head and Neck Oncology Tumor Boards: Perspectives of Collaborating Physicians. Issue 1 (28th February 2023)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Amin, Neha B.; Bridgham, Kelly M.; Brown, Jessica P.; Moyer, Kelly F.; Taylor, Rodney J.; Wolf, Jeffrey S.; Witek, Matthew E.; Molitoris, Jason K.; Mehra, Ranee; Cullen, Kevin J.; Papadimitriou, John C.; Raghavan, Prashant; Hatten, Kyle M.
• Is Part Of: OTO open. Volume 7:Issue 1(2023)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2023-02-28
• Subjects: head and neck cancer -- medical oncology -- multidisciplinary tumor board -- radiation oncology; Otolaryngology -- Periodicals; Otolaryngology; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 617.51
• DOI: 10.1002/oto2.18
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2473-974X

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: To survey academic and community physician preferences regarding the virtual multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) for further improvement and expansion. Study Design: This anonymous 14‐question survey was sent to individuals that participated in the head and neck virtual MTBs. The survey was sent via email beginning August 3, 2021, through October 5, 2021. Setting: The University of Maryland Medical Center and regional practices in the state of Maryland. Methods: Survey responses were recorded and presented as percentages. Subset analysis was performed to obtain frequency distributions by facility and provider type. Results: There were 50 survey responses obtained with a response rate of 56%. Survey participants included 11 surgeons (22%), 19 radiation oncologists (38%), and 8 medical oncologists (16%), amongst others. More than 96% of participants found the virtual MTB to be useful when discussing complex cases and impactful to future patient care. A majority of respondents perceived a reduction in time to adjuvant care (64%). Community and academic physician responses strongly agreed that the virtual MTB improved communication (82% vs 73%), provided patient‐specific information for cancer care (82% vs 73%), and improved access to other specialties (66% vs 64%). Academic physicians, more so than community physicians, strongly agreed that the virtual MTB improves access to clinical trial enrollment (64% vs 29%) and can be useful in obtaining CME (64% vs 55%). Conclusion: Academic and community physicians view the virtual MTB favorably. This platform can be adapted regionally and further expanded to improve communication between physicians and improve multidisciplinary care for patients.